Has the RIAA sued 18,000 people... or 35,000?

Ars gets to the bottom of the recording industry's legal war on file-sharing by answering the question: just how many people have been sued, anyway?<BR><BR><a href='http://meincmagazine.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/has-the-riaa-sued-18000-people-or-35000.ars'>Read the whole story</a>

 

[RayBeckerman]

For 4 or 5 years the RIAA was suing about 10,000 people a year; those were all "named defendants". This is according to their monthly press releases. So either they were lying then, or they are lying now.

 

[bicarb]

Aren't there laws against making threats towards people who might join a class action lawsuit?

 

[David Bradbury]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">11,000 settled immediately ... between $3,000-$5,000 </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>So, that's $44 million (at average of $4,000 each). Wow, what a racket. I wish I could get people to give me cash without suing them or proving they did anything of any kind.

 

[aphexbr]

That's all? I'd have thought they'd have broken 100,000 by now... Yet, they seem to think that this relatively tiny number of people would make a dent in the total number of filesharers? Maybe if they were all sharing millions of tracks, but when they can only claim around 23 track for the likes of Jammie Thomas, it's a losing strategy.<BR><BR>@RayBeckerman: I'm sure the answer is c) they were lying then and they're lying now.

 

[Demondeluxe]

So let me get this straight, if you pay the settlement all you get is a plastic smile and a promise that they will not sue you for the infringement in the future. Maybe I am just not into trusting sleazy, greedy, bloodsucking record execs but I am shocked that so many people took the settlement. Then the old, if you try to sue us we are gonna come after you for more payola. WoW, just fucking wow. Sounds to me like the Mafiaa, the triads, the Yakuza, and just about every other major criminal organization should start taking lessons from the RIAA, they got a fucking racket going.

 

[severusx]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bicarb:<BR>Aren't there laws against making threats towards people who might join a class action lawsuit? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Well, it isn't necessarily a threat as much as it is a statement of procedural fact. I for one would like to see the RIAA attempt to re-file all of those named suits for infringement. The Thomas trial has given them enough of a PR black eye that they are still offering a settlement to her, can you imagine what hundreds or thousands of trials might do? We might actually see the public uprising and subsequent rejection of their tactics that we all want.

 

[Fentras]

That image is creepy as all hell.

 

[Ganso]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In other words, don't join the lawsuit or you could end up on the hook for far more money </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I don't understand, does this advice only apply to the people that settled without the Pre Naming Letter?<BR><BR>I'm guessing that there is some sort of mechanism that is protecting people that actually got a lawsuit filed against them? Can this people join the class-action lawsuit without fear of having the RIAA come down on them again?<BR><BR>This is a nice racket these guys have going on.

 

[slumbergod]

This is how the music industry in the US makes its money now...by criminalising individuals and grabbing $5K+ per person. Disgusting and evil. How can a legal system allow insane fines of this magnitude? It is a good lesson for the rest of the world to avoid.

 

[Mister E. Meat]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by David Bradbury:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">11,000 settled immediately ... between $3,000-$5,000 </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>So, that's $44 million (at average of $4,000 each). Wow, what a racket. I wish I could get people to give me cash without suing them or proving they did anything of any kind. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I came in to post something similar. You missed out that of the other 7000, almost everyone settled as well. I believe they had their settlement amounts jacked up as well.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>Seven thousand people held out or did not respond, and the RIAA filed named federal lawsuits against them. Once that happened, most of these people also settled[.] </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>And from http://meincmagazine.com/tech-po...ghting-subpoenas.ars<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And if a student decides to challenge the RIAA's subpoena or otherwise delay a trial, the price jumps dramatically to $7,000 or $8,000. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>So that means we have 11K*3K + 7K*~7K to give an estimated total of $82 million. Altough the RIAA claims to have lost money on the campaign, I find that <B>very</B> hard to believe.

 

[Demondeluxe]

Worse than that if you were to join a class action lawsuit, I am sure they would try to spin you paying the settlement as an admission of guilt just to try to speed the trial up and get right to the part where you start paying them.

 

[Mister E. Meat]

Now I am more confused. The RIAA claims (through their attorneys) to have only reached settlement with 4000 users.<BR><BR>Ars, can you cite the source used to reach the 11K number?

 

[Tundro Walker]

Suing "Does" ... suing an anonymous person before you find out who it is that did the crime. That speaks volumes, but what it says sucks.

 

[Cherlindrea]

I have surpassed the point to where there are any words in existence to express my sheer hatred of the RIAA and their member labels. The fact that they are manipulating our judicial system to such mass detriment of the common man is so outrageous that it makes me actually wish that all those horrible things that gangsta rappers write about actually HAPPEN to the RIAA and the record execs.<BR><BR>Saying "fuck 'em" isn't near strong enough. This whole situation is a complete kerfuckle.

 

[reflex-croft]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Altough the RIAA claims to have lost money on the campaign, I find that very hard to believe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Look into legal prices and you'll see that its very probable they are losing money on this campaign. I can't imagine filing a suit for less than five grand.

 

[Mister E. Meat]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by reflex-croft:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Altough the RIAA claims to have lost money on the campaign, I find that very hard to believe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Look into legal prices and you'll see that its very probable they are losing money on this campaign. I can't imagine filing a suit for less than five grand. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>They didn't file in every case. Additionally, the ones they did file were very boilerplate, I'm sure. Having done some work in the past in legal office automation, I can almost guarantee that they just filled in a few blanks and paid a filing fee.

 

[kobolds]

I guess now we know where they got the money to lobby .

 

[Badbonia]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Demondeluxe:<BR>So let me get this straight, if you pay the settlement all you get is a plastic smile and a promise that they will not sue you for the infringement in the future. Maybe I am just not into trusting sleazy, greedy, bloodsucking record execs but I am shocked that so many people took the settlement. Then the old, if you try to sue us we are gonna come after you for more payola. WoW, just fucking wow. Sounds to me like the Mafiaa, the triads, the Yakuza, and just about every other major criminal organization should start taking lessons from the RIAA, they got a fucking racket going. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>The difference between the RIAA and organized crime is as large as it is obvious. RIAA is suing people who most likely broke some law. Organized crime is not.<BR><BR>Isn't it amazing how, when you think like an adult, the answers come so easily?

 

[Nate Anderson]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mister E. Meat:<BR>Now I am more confused. The RIAA claims (through their attorneys) to have only reached settlement with 4000 users.<BR><BR>Ars, can you cite the source used to reach the 11K number? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>18,000 people were contacted; 7,000 of them had named lawsuits filed against them. That leaves 11,000--Oppenheim says that these 11,000 either settled or for some reason were not pursued by the RIAA and no lawsuit was ever filed. I've updated the post to make that last bit explicit. Not all of these 11,000 settled.

 

[Catafriggm]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badbonia:<BR>The difference between the RIAA and organized crime is as large as it is obvious. RIAA is suing people who most likely broke some law. Organized crime is not.<BR><BR>Isn't it amazing how, when you think like an adult, the answers come so easily? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Most likely? A pity you have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim. Go ahead, prove me wrong right now, for everybody to see - present real numbers of rightful and wrongful suits made by the RIAA. Until then you've done nothing but emphatically say things even you have no reason to believe are true. Mature adults most certainly do not do that without receiving money or other compensation in exchange. Have you received such compensation, or are you saying you personally have a child's capacity to determine something is obvious with no rational basis? Or were you merely stating your own personal opinion (a subjective conclusion that lacks the supporting evidence of a statement of fact), and insulting the intelligence and maturity of anyone who has a differing opinion was simply you being an irrational asshole?

 

[p0wd3r]

Badbonia-<BR> So, what you are saying is that it's ok to charge someone $10,000.00 for a carton of eggs that they stole from the grocery store as fair restitution? I mean, there are 12 (depending on the carton of course) eggs there, so that could mean that 11 other people could have also received these eggs for free as well, and who knows how many people they could have given those eggs to...<BR><BR>Pull your head out of your ass man, just because they are robbing people in a more creative way than simply putting a gun in their face doesn't make it right. If you justify any of these suits then either you are one of the beneficiaries of the grossly overbloated and unprovable "damages", or you yourself are having a seriously hard time thinking like an adult.<BR><BR>Now, about the article. The reason they've sued so many individuals is simply because most people won't put up a fight because they're scared, and this is what they're counting on. If they tried to sue someone with some sort of means of defending themselves, the case would probably be tossed (i remember this happening a while ago, I could be wrong though). It is very sad to see them praying on the weak like this, using people's lack of knowledge of how file sharing, and even a simple Internet connection, work. The RIAA can simply state that millions of people have access to this file, and can't prove that even 1, other than themselves, have accessed the file, and the not technically savvy court heads don't understand what this means.<BR><BR>Also, when a case is "settled", doesn't that dismiss it? I could be wrong, and I probably am, but I thought that a settlement made it so the defendant could no longer be prosecuted for the same charge, so wouldn't that make it impossible to have the same charges revisited if it was already settled?

 

[Vlad.Ţepeş]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Demondeluxe:<BR>Worse than that if you were to join a class action lawsuit, I am sure they would try to spin you paying the settlement as an admission of guilt just to try to speed the trial up and get right to the part where you start paying them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I share your skepticism on the matter, and though I'm not certain what "they would try to" do in the future, or even who "they" will be, the scenario you present seems logical, it does indeed appear, assuming the information in the article is accurate, that those who have settled have set themselves up into a very vulnerable situation should the RIAA decide to change their minds and take them to court later. <BR><BR>What I am relatively certain of is, having followed Napster's advice to get involved by writing my congressmen and other politicians more directly involved, and studying the replies from my congressmen who unlike the other politicians did respond, and having read statements from numerous politicians including presidents in the news, it would appear that the politicians in two of the three branches of our government have reached conclusions they usually pass off to the judiciary. Do our politicians or political parties ever agree unanimously on anything no matter how simple or common sensible it is? Just how much does the RIAA, the labels, and the artists contribute to these politicians anyway? It must be considerable, my guess is that whatever cash has been recorded, far more has been funneled in from elsewhere. For example, even despite his love for celebrities, President Obama surely would need more than the $2,000 USD he received from the RIAA before he'd bow down to the cause, as I would expect with the other 50 politicians listed as recipients. Not to mention the perceived "assumption" that the RIAA is law is almost uniform, not confined to the 50 or so receiving contributions from the RIAA. <BR><BR>It would appear that the same artists who so often profit cranking out songs critical of politicians see no problem in involving themselves in dirty politics for their own benefit. True or not, what isn't debatable is questionable manipulation of the legal system by those the artists have employed that has led to some very serious problems in the lives of thousands of their fans. The fact that any dollar given these artists, deserved or not, may be used to destroy the lives of friends or family should be warning enough to make anyone carefully consider giving that dollar in the first place.

 

[atergo]

If one of the conditions of the settlement was not to sue the RIAA, then joining a class-action lawsuit could be breach of contract.<BR><BR>If it was NOT one of the conditions, and they joined a class action lawsuit, then if the RIAA processed the original infringement suit, then THAT could be breach of contract on the RIAA's part.

 

[Nagumo]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by severusx:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bicarb:<BR>Aren't there laws against making threats towards people who might join a class action lawsuit? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Well, it isn't necessarily a threat as much as it is a statement of procedural fact. I for one would like to see the RIAA attempt to re-file all of those named suits for infringement. The Thomas trial has given them enough of a PR black eye that they are still offering a settlement to her, can you imagine what hundreds or thousands of trials might do? We might actually see the public uprising and subsequent rejection of their tactics that we all want. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>No matter how much you want to believe it, Ars does not represent the populace at large. Hence the choice of a jury to award the RIAA not $750 per infringing distribution, but $82,000 per track.

 

[Catafriggm]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nagumo:<BR>No matter how much you want to believe it, Ars does not represent the populace at large. Hence the choice of a jury to award the RIAA not $750 per infringing distribution, but $82,000 per track. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>On a tangentially related thought, there are only three acts considered so severe and dangerous that they may be punished without presumption of innocence or proof of guilt: terrorism, rape, and micro-scale noncommercial copyright infringement (although judges in the US are starting to question whether terrorism belongs on this list).<BR><BR>Of course I'm being US-centric here, but you get the idea.

 

[Nagumo]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Catafriggm:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nagumo:<BR>No matter how much you want to believe it, Ars does not represent the populace at large. Hence the choice of a jury to award the RIAA not $750 per infringing distribution, but $82,000 per track. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>On a tangentially related thought, there are only three acts considered so severe and dangerous that they may be punished without presumption of innocence or proof of guilt: terrorism, rape, and micro-scale noncommercial copyright infringement (although judges in the US are starting to question whether terrorism belongs on this list). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Pretty scary, eh? Especially when you think how terrorism and rape are vile acts against actual people, while non-commercial copyright infringement is relatively harmless in the grand scheme.

 

[d_jedi]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by aphexbr:<BR>but when they can only claim around 23 track for the likes of Jammie Thomas, it's a losing strategy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Logic fail.<BR><BR>Thomas was sharing 1700+ files. I'm sure if the RIAA took the time, they could have downloaded them all and found most infringing. But there really was no point in doing that from their perspective.

 

[Nagumo]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by d_jedi:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by aphexbr:<BR>but when they can only claim around 23 track for the likes of Jammie Thomas, it's a losing strategy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Logic fail.<BR><BR>Thomas was sharing 1700+ files. I'm sure if the RIAA took the time, they could have downloaded them all and found most infringing. But there really was no point in doing that from their perspective. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Hence why it doesn't matter. If it's not worth pursuing legally, it's not worth discussion either.

 

[d_jedi]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p0wd3r:<BR>Badbonia-<BR> So, what you are saying is that it's ok to charge someone $10,000.00 for a carton of eggs that they stole from the grocery store as fair restitution? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>As oft repeated, copyright infringement is not theft (in a legal sense).

 

[Catafriggm]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by d_jedi:<BR>As oft repeated, copyright infringement is not theft (in a legal sense). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Indeed. Legally, copyright infringement is totally and completely different from theft, and considered almost infinitely worse.<BR><BR>How about you? Do you consider copyright infringement to be theft, or something else entirely? Speaking morally, of course.

 

[Nagumo]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Catafriggm:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by d_jedi:<BR>As oft repeated, copyright infringement is not theft (in a legal sense). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Indeed. Legally, copyright infringement is totally and completely different from theft, and considered almost infinitely worse.<BR><BR>How about you? Do you consider copyright infringement to be theft, or something else entirely? Speaking morally, of course. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I'll consider copyright theft once copyright isn't an affront to humanity any longer. The current bastardized form is just disgusting. Copyright serves nobody but the corporations these days.

 

[d_jedi]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Catafriggm:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by d_jedi:<BR>As oft repeated, copyright infringement is not theft (in a legal sense). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Indeed. Legally, copyright infringement is totally and completely different from theft, and considered almost infinitely worse.<BR><BR>How about you? Do you consider copyright infringement to be theft, or something else entirely? Speaking morally, of course. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Morally, theft and copyright infringement are pretty much on equal terms - you are taking something that doesn't belong to you. The reason being, the effect to the wronged party (the person the item is stolen from, or whose work is infringed) is the same. If you pirate my software (of which I'd earn, say, $20 on the copy, should you have purchased it legally) or steal $20 out of my pocket.. I am out the same $20.

 

[Nagumo]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by d_jedi:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Catafriggm:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by d_jedi:<BR>As oft repeated, copyright infringement is not theft (in a legal sense). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Indeed. Legally, copyright infringement is totally and completely different from theft, and considered almost infinitely worse.<BR><BR>How about you? Do you consider copyright infringement to be theft, or something else entirely? Speaking morally, of course. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Morally, theft and copyright infringement are pretty much on equal terms - you are taking something that doesn't belong to you. The reason being, the effect to the wronged party (the person the item is stolen from, or whose work is infringed) is the same. If you pirate my software (of which I'd earn, say, $20 on the copy, should you have purchased it legally) or steal $20 out of my pocket.. I am out the same $20. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Bullshit! Copyright infringement doesn't remove any money from your pocket where as physical theft does. <BR><BR>That I even have to resort to this tired image bothers me. But the concept seems to evade you.<BR><BR>View image: http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/1893/piracy20not20theft.jpg

 

[d_jedi]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nagumo:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Catafriggm:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by d_jedi:<BR>As oft repeated, copyright infringement is not theft (in a legal sense). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Indeed. Legally, copyright infringement is totally and completely different from theft, and considered almost infinitely worse.<BR><BR>How about you? Do you consider copyright infringement to be theft, or something else entirely? Speaking morally, of course. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I'll consider copyright theft once copyright isn't an affront to humanity any longer. The current bastardized form is just disgusting. Copyright serves nobody but the corporations these days. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I'm not particularly happy with the copyright law either.. the term is too long, and retroactively extending it is simply ridiculous.<BR><BR>That said, most (probably not all - but I'm not aware of any particular cases) lawsuits for copyright infringement are for works which under what I think would be objectively reasonable terms (ex. the original 28 or so years the US had).. would still be entitled to copyright protection.

 

[atergo]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by d_jedi:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Catafriggm:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by d_jedi:<BR>As oft repeated, copyright infringement is not theft (in a legal sense). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Indeed. Legally, copyright infringement is totally and completely different from theft, and considered almost infinitely worse.<BR><BR>How about you? Do you consider copyright infringement to be theft, or something else entirely? Speaking morally, of course. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Morally, theft and copyright infringement are pretty much on equal terms - you are taking something that doesn't belong to you. The reason being, the effect to the wronged party (the person the item is stolen from, or whose work is infringed) is the same. If you pirate my software (of which I'd earn, say, $20 on the copy, should you have purchased it legally) or steal $20 out of my pocket.. I am out the same $20. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>In that case, what is the maximum punishment for stealing the $20? What is the maximum punishment for infringing $20 worth of IP?

 

[d_jedi]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nagumo:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by d_jedi:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Catafriggm:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by d_jedi:<BR>As oft repeated, copyright infringement is not theft (in a legal sense). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Indeed. Legally, copyright infringement is totally and completely different from theft, and considered almost infinitely worse.<BR><BR>How about you? Do you consider copyright infringement to be theft, or something else entirely? Speaking morally, of course. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Morally, theft and copyright infringement are pretty much on equal terms - you are taking something that doesn't belong to you. The reason being, the effect to the wronged party (the person the item is stolen from, or whose work is infringed) is the same. If you pirate my software (of which I'd earn, say, $20 on the copy, should you have purchased it legally) or steal $20 out of my pocket.. I am out the same $20. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Bullshit! Copyright infringement doesn't remove any money from your pocket where as physical theft does. <BR><BR>That I even have to resort to this tired image bothers me. But the concept seems to evade you.<BR><BR>View image: http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/1893/piracy20not20theft.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Good grief.<BR><BR>I *was* about to write a lengthy post.. but instead, I'll suggest you read my earlier ones in this thread. If you *still* don't understand why your post here makes no sense.. well, I don't think there's hope for you..

 

[reflex-croft]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nagumo:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by d_jedi:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Catafriggm:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by d_jedi:<BR>As oft repeated, copyright infringement is not theft (in a legal sense). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Indeed. Legally, copyright infringement is totally and completely different from theft, and considered almost infinitely worse.<BR><BR>How about you? Do you consider copyright infringement to be theft, or something else entirely? Speaking morally, of course. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Morally, theft and copyright infringement are pretty much on equal terms - you are taking something that doesn't belong to you. The reason being, the effect to the wronged party (the person the item is stolen from, or whose work is infringed) is the same. If you pirate my software (of which I'd earn, say, $20 on the copy, should you have purchased it legally) or steal $20 out of my pocket.. I am out the same $20. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Bullshit! Copyright infringement doesn't remove any money from your pocket where as physical theft does. <BR><BR>That I even have to resort to this tired image bothers me. But the concept seems to evade you.<BR><BR>View image: http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/1893/piracy20not20theft.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Not everyone agrees with this concept. If someone takes something of yours, but does so in a careful manner in which you do not lose ownership of it(say without permission takes your belongings when you are not home or drives your car when you are not using it, but returns it before you notice), that does not mean it is not theft. Yes, 'Copyright Infringement' has a specific legal definition, just as trespassing, theft and other property crimes do, but for all intents and purposes it is simply an explicit definition of the *type* of theft involved. Historically plenty of crimes have been considered 'theft' when they did not affect the original copy/version, such as theft of a business plan, an invention, etc.<BR><BR>The only people to whom the definition matters are those who are trying to split hairs(and in the process minimize the crime), and lawyers. At the end of the day, legally speaking yes there is a specific label for the type of theft, but from a societal and moral perspective, its still theft even if a more descriptive and specific term is used in the court room.

 

[reflex-croft]

Just to clarify, it appears to me that there are two conflicting definitions for theft:<BR><BR>1) Depriving someone of something that is legally thiers(most physical theft falls into this definition)<BR><BR>2) Utilizing something which a person does not have ownership of or permission to use(most intellectual property theft falls into this definition)<BR><BR>Both create losses to the original party, although the nature of those losses are different. Both are forms of theft, but the consequences for the original party and for the thief are different.

 

[Nagumo]

<I>At the end of the day, legally speaking yes there is a specific label for the type of theft, but from a societal and moral perspective, its still theft even if a more descriptive and specific term is used in the court room.</I><BR><BR>No, it's not. Theft requires a very specific act. That being removal of a physical object. Copyright infringement isn't theft because it does not take anything away from the owner. Nor does it stop the infringer from later purchasing said object. Something that theft most certainly entails.